You have not refuted anything whatsoever, what, just because you say so!? Your posts are too too long and rambling; I can seldom if ever even finish reading any one of them! Shorten-up your mere pure assertions and, give me short, concise, referenced, refutation that is not mere assertion.
Here's my first post on this thread. I took your points one by one, and not only addressed them, but made polite and straightforward inquiry to clarify what you were posting. You chose to ignore any and all questions presented, not to mention the arguments presented refuting your claims, but then chose to engage immediately in Ad Hominem, and trolling. This is not just unprofessional, but insulting.
Here again are my points which you have yet to address:
Duane Clinton Meehan said:
↑
"1. Judaeo-Christian theological error consists in deeming the Biblical Yahweh, Jehovah, and Christ, to be Deity which both created man, and, master and command men via written law and scripture."
Yes. I agree. The law is only there as a guide to point out that they're already on the wrong track. It can't fix them. It can only point out what they would be doing if they had not left the tracks.
"2. An authentic Omnipotent Godhead, having made man, would not thereafter mistakenly demand man determine himself, in his acts and forbearance, by a deistically established and enforced language of law/ scripture; for to do so contravenes man’s authentically deistically created ontological mode of originating action and inaction; which human ontological mode of upsurge of action fundamentally pre-qualifies man for the possibility of constructing a non-legalistic mode of civilization, patterned upon the form provided by man’s overall personal ontological structure."
Here again, this is right in line with what the biblical texts suggest. The old covenant was useless, whereas the new covenant is based upon a process that is the exact opposite of the old. Under the Old Covenant, man sins because he is a sinner. Under the New Covenant, humanity lives in a sanctified, holy state because they're created that way. A fish doesn't learn to swim so it can be a fish. A fish swims because it is a fish.
"3. Yahweh/Jehovah/Christ, of Judaeo-Christian scripture, proclaiming man shall be determined in his acts, and his forbearance to act, by a language of law attendant upon holy scripture,"
This isn't the case. This is putting the cart before the horse. Christ points out that one is born from above, and are a new creation created for a life of abundance. That is their ontological destiny.
"thereby exhibit an incompetent lack of familiarity with the originative mode of upsurge of human action."
He explicitly points out that it comes directly from the father. He does only what he sees the father doing, and what he does is to empty himself into the world, e.g. "The word became flesh". This emptying is a negation of himself; what he refers to as the necessity of denying oneself.
"If an Omnipotent God has indeed created man, that Omnipotent knew a priori that human beings cannot be determined,"
You're using the wrong terminology here. Don't you mean an omniscient God knew a priori?
"...in their acts and forbearance, by the given factual states of law and scripture; thereby indicating Judaeo-Christian Deity, as described by Biblical Prophets, are inauthentic Deity, and, further, are inauthentic Deity which both practice mistake and exhibit ignorance regarding the genuine nihilative mode of originative upsurge of human action, and, of human forbearance to act."
Where does the scripture state human beings are determined in their acts by law? I don't see that at all. What I see is man being determined by his own nature which is at odds with the law. Thus a new nature is required.
"4. Consciousness is prior to the theoretical construct "law", which law is mistakenly posited as determinative of conduct,"
I agree that some may take this position, but again, I don't see this as what the biblical texts state at all. Do you know where they're getting this idea from? My suspicion is that they're getting this from theologians who don't know what they're talking about.
"by a series of human Biblical Prophetic consciousnesses, while, all the while, law-positing human consciousness, by virtue of its own ontological structure, cannot subsequently be determined to action, or inaction, by the self-same mistakenly posited language of "law"."
This is essentially no different than Paul's point that the law can't save anyone. No one is justified or made righteous by the works of the law.
"Inauthentic Biblical Deity and Biblical Prophets insist men determine their conduct via existing “law” and “scripture”,"
Again, this is blatantly false. A gross misreading of the texts. e.g.
Jeremiah 31:31-34;
Ezekiel 11:19;36:26;
Hebrews 8:9,10
"while, all the while, determination is negation, meaning human action-origination proceeds purely on the basis of n o n-e x I s t a n t s, not on the basis of existing states of affairs like “law”, i.e., “No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state”, etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever."
Again, this is simply repeating the same thing both Christ and Paul point out which is that no one can be saved by the works of the law. Man's ontological state of defilement precludes him from ever cleaning up or getting his act together.
"If I entertain the possibility that my created consciousness is made in the image and likeness of Deity, then, to gain core familiarity with Deity, I simply need study the ontological structure of my Deity- reflecting consciousness."
Yep, and this goes beyond your assumption of a consciousness that you possess. It isn't even you who is studying it, but God revealing his consciousness. "You" must negate any sense of self. As the gospel writer puts it; "I must decrease that he may increase".
"6. Consciousness is the constant study, and, the entire subject matter of Jean Paul Sartre’s Being and Nothingness, 1943...
7. Sartre’s theory of origin of human action posits consciousness as upsurging acts via “the double nihilation”, a position predicated upon Baruch Spinoza’s (1632-1677) “determinatio negatio est”,"
And all of this is essentially no different than Christ's doctrine of self denial/self sacrifice. The biblical authors even point out that Christ "empties himself of his divinity, as well as his humanity. Mark's gospel invites his readers to peer into a tomb, but not just any tomb; an empty one. This is the essence of the gospel. A complete abolition of the self, the persona.
So far, the only thing we hear in response is a much more profound rendition of Simon and Garfunkal's "The Sound of Silence"